|
DRAFT
This is still a work in progress. Perceptive political
observers have noted a time-line of about one year's duration ending with the attacks of 9/11. This time-line began
in September 2000 with the publication by the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) of a Zionist Neoconservative position
paper entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses. Soon after 9/11 these astute observers recalled a suggestion in this PNAC
position paper that a "new Pearl Harbor" type of event will expedite an otherwise slow transformation of programs
to suit the overarching goal, which is domination of the world by the military might of the USA. And so a time-line of approximately one year extends from the call for a "new
Pearl Harbor" to the attacks of 9/11. Within this time-line a progression of events are noted and they are described
as linked. Other papers reflecting the PNAC's ideology of military domination of the world or explaining its origins
predate this September 2000 to September 2001 time-line, but for the present purpose, only this time-line and certain events
that took place afterwards are considered. My purpose here
is to overlay this September 2000 to September 2001 time-line with another time-line of my own, which is based on a legal
proceeding in the US Court of Appeals and Judicial Council of the 11th Circuit in Atlanta. The narrative I give suggests
how the date of 11 September 2001 was chosen in the context of the larger September 2000 to September 2001 time-line. The salient points of the September 2000 to September 2001 time-line begin
with the PNAC document calling for a "new Pearl Harbor" to actuate the plan. A signatory of this provocative
document is Dov Zakheim, who is also at this time the foreign policy adviser of presidential candidate George W. Bush.
(It will also be noted in the days and weeks immediately after 9/11 that the attacking aerial vehicles were very likely flown
by remote control, and now we see in retrospect that Dov Zakheim has a strong background in remote control technologies associated
with the military industrial complex through System Planning Corporation.) Candidate Bush derided the notion of nation building, but once in the White House, at his very
first National Security Council meeting in early February 2001, he essentially directed his administration to use the sovereign
powers of the USA to find a way to take Iraq. Then Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill is witness to this betrayal
of trust of the American people and out and out violation of international law and the Nuremberg Principles. Next Zakheim was elevated to Undersecretary of Defense and Comptroller of
the Pentagon, where his Zionist Neoconservative motives blended with the means of Department of Defense resources and the
opportunities afforded at the nexus of the nation's command, control and communications systems, as well as the Zionist and
Zionist-friendly network permeating this governmental architecture. In this regard it should be pointed out that the
Zionist led software company Ptech was for two years leading up to 9/11 busy installing on major US government computer systems
programs where means of infiltration for the purposes of monitoring and intervention could have easily been introduced.
This explains the US government's flat-footed response on 9/11. And it also needs to be recalled how on 10 September
2001 Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announced that $2.3 trillion could not be accounted for by Dov Zakheim's Comptroller
department. The events of the very next day caused many to forget this colossal swindle on the scale of the September
2008 financial attack on the USA. Right about the
time Zakheim settled into the Comptroller's office at the Pentagon is when my narrative begins with the federal appeals court
in Atlanta. By then a certain momentum had already been built in the main time-line of which I was at the time entirely
unaware. Other events occurred, but still I could not connect the dots. Bush had given his signal to take Iraq,
and now Zionists would cause a Zionist to lease the problematic World Trade Center for 99 years just 49 days before 9/11.
Nearly eight years later we learned of the discovery of military grade nano thermitic explosive residue in dust samples provided
by local residents living near Ground Zero in New York. These explosives could not possibly have come from a tent or
cave in Afghanistan, and there is little doubt they were used after George W. Bush had given the order to find a way to go
into Iraq. A pretext for war had been fabricated to comply with Bush's order, and to attain the Zionist Neoconservative
goal of putting American muscle on Mesopotamian patrol. Clear
evidence of a self-inflicted wound -- a military intelligence false flag operation -- has been shown but is still ignored
by those with proper jurisdiction or sufficient influence to initiate a full, fair and impartial investigation of this crime
of this young century. I present my time-line as a material
witness and to give fuller context to discussions of motivation to commit the crimes of 9/11.
So here's a 9/11 time line that will surprise you. It begins with a
letter to the editor published in the New York Times of 30 April 2001: '67 Attack on the Liberty
To the Editor: Re "Book Says Israel Intended 1967 Attack on U.S. Ship"
(news article, April 23): James Bamford's book "Body of Secrets" indicates that the attack on the United States
intelligence ship Liberty by Israel in 1967 was intended. I researched this
matter for 13 years. I analyzed 10 official United States investigations of the incident by the Central Intelligence
Agency, the United States Navy, the President's Foreign Intelligence Board, the Department of Defense and the National Security
Agency, plus five Congressional investigations. They all came to the same conclusion, as did three official Israeli
investigations: The attack was a tragic mistake, or there is no evidence that it was intentional. A.
Jay Cristol Miami, April 23, 200 The writer is a federal judge in the Southern District of Florida. Not wanting to let this fraud pass unchallenged, I filed a
complaint of judicial misconduct against Judge Cristol, as shown below (next 8 pages). The law that I invoked, 28 United
States Code § 372(c), was changed as of 2 November 2002 and is now known as 28 United States Code §§ 351 -
364. Click
here for easier to read copies of the following five pages. The decision of the Chief Judge was swift, nitpicking as to the relativity of my misuse of the
term "color of the law" and fully abstentious on the heavier matters of my complaint. (See next two pages.)
I therefore exercised my prerogative to petition the Judicial Council for review of the Chief Judge's
dismissal of my complaint as "frivolous." Click here for easier to read copy of text. The
Court received and accepted my petition. At
this time I also phoned a request to Judge Cristol for a copy of his original letter of 23 April 2001 to the Editor of the
New York Times. Such a simple request left with his assistant who answered the
phone resulted in this rather convoluted response.  Based on previous experience in petitioning the judicial councils
of the 2nd and 7th circuits for review of chief appellate judges' decisions in 1993 [93-8533 and 93-8534 in the 2nd Circuit
and 93-7-372-22 in the 7th Circuit], I expected a swift reply from this Judicial Council of the 11th Circuit in Atlanta. But by 20 July, nearly three full weeks after properly submitting my petition,
I began to hope that the Judicial Council would exercise its prerogative to launch its own investigation or even introduce
the matter to the highest level, the Judicial Conference, which meets once a year with the Chief Justice of the United States
presiding. The text box below shows that part of the law
empowering the Judicial Council to refer complaints such as mine to the Judicial Conference. Click the text box or this
link for the full text of the law:  http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00000354----000-.html. Note well that the
Judicial Council's requirement to notify both the complainant and the judge whose conduct is the subject of the complaint
is not absolute; in the interests of justice such notification may be withheld.
Entirely unbeknownst to me at the time, the Judicial Conference was set to
meet on the morning of 11 September 2001 in the US Supreme Court Building. Just as my hopes were kindled by the Judicial Council's delayed response, I also realized that
Judge Cristol must have been a bit apprehensive about what was taking so long within the Judicial Council. Judge Cristol surely knew that the Judicial Council could very well
refer my petition/complaint to the Judicial Conference without informing him, the complained-of judge, and me, the petitioner
and complainant. He also knew that a major victory for the USS Liberty Veterans Association -- tantamount to a public
relations disaster for the Zionists -- was hanging in the balance! Such a victory on a very long campaign to establish
historic truth and the proper administration of justice would certainly result in loss of support for the Zionists in the
USA as more and more Americans become aware of the true nature of the attack on the USS Liberty and the Zionists' abysmal
behavior toward the USS Liberty survivors, their families and friends. It
is in this context that one must consider the strange press conference on 24 July 2001 in which Governor of New York State
George Pataki announced Larry Silverstein's 99 year lease on the World Trade Center. I say "strange" not just
because there was the appearance of schmoozing cronyism, but because the World Trade Center was considered a "White
Elephant" with regulatory and ordinance problems galore! Why take on such long term commitments requiring very
expensive undertakings such as asbestos removal? To demolish and rebuild was the best solution.
Well, the head of the Port Authority who handed Silverstein the keys to the
WTC just happened to be an ardent Zionist and prominent official of the Republican Party. Lewis Eisenberg was very likely
already aware of what Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill would later reveal in January 2004; namely, that President George W. Bush at his very first National Security Council meeting
in early February 2001 declared his intention to invade and occupy Iraq and demanded that a way be found to do this!
And so
the main objective of creating a pretext for putting American muscle on Mesopotamian patrol was realized on 9/11. And of course Lucky Larry Silverstein,
another avid Zionist, made vast returns on his initial terrorism insurance premiums 49 days later on 9/11! The
text box below is clickable and will take you to the 24 July 2001 press release on the Port Authority website.  In the meantime, on 23 July 2001 -- exactly one day before Governor Pataki's World Trade Center
news conference -- I took a little excursion out of the power center of New York City to Washington DC where I attended a
small gathering at the Army Navy Club as the guest of former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Thomas H. Moorer
(Requiescat in pace). The
wide open skies of Washington make me feel I'm in the country. I picked a daisy from a flower box on the way to the
Army Navy Club , and upon my somewhat early arrival there I sat in a lounge and started to pluck each of the daisy's petals one by one.
For each petal plucked, I would alternately whisper, "The Judicial Council is taking my petition quite seriously"
and "The Judicial Council, like the Chief Judge, finds my complaint "frivolous" and they are all having a good
laugh!" Nearly a full month had gone by
with no response to my petition for review of the Chief Judge's decision. Completely unaware of the 49 day countdown
from Silverstein's lease of the World Trade Center to 9/11, and completely unaware of the Judicial Conference also set for
that fateful day, I reported on my trip to Washington and the Army Navy Club to the Judicial Council because the proceedings
there had, as shown below in the next three pages, direct bearing on the matter currently before the judges. For easier
to read copies of next two pages, click here. Because this correspondence became part of the
case file, I am sure that Judge Cristol was apprised of it. Footnote: Soon after Brassey's Inc. published Cristol's book The
Liberty Incident in 2002 (based on his 1997 University of Miami dissertation of the same title), Captain Ward Boston,
who had been the legal counsel of the US Navy Court of Inquiry into the USS Liberty incident, formally repudiated the Navy
Court of Inquiry's falsified findings and politically driven conclusions as well as Judge Cristol and his book.(See http://www.gtr5.com/Witnesses/boston.pdf.)  I dare to say that, like most Americans, all the chief judges of the 11th Circuit Judicial Council,
listed below on the next three pages, lack Talmud awareness. The Talmud, unlike the Torah, elevates Jews above non-Jews
and permits certain liberties that we Americans would deem criminal. Of special concern to judges should be the Talmudic
Law of the Moser, whereby a Jew is prohibited from informing on another Jew to a non-Jew, directly or indirectly. This
very real practice, not unlike the Mafioso Code of Omertà, is diametrically opposed to our legal system, and should
also be of concern to our intelligence and law enforcement communities. The Talmudic Law of the Moser is essentially
a conspiracy of silence conducive to obstruction of justice. One cannot fully understand 9/11 or the USS Liberty incident
without taking the Talmudic Law of the Moser into account. Click http://www.show-the-house.com/id10.html to learn more about the Talmudic Law of the Moser. Also, anyone on the Internet can audit Talmud 101 at this very excellent
website http://www.come-and-hear.com. This should be a mandatory exercise for judicial, law enforcement and intelligence officers.
   Then came 9/11! Again, at the time, I had no idea the Judicial Conference was meeting that
very morning! After the attacks in New York
City, when the south tower WTC2 had already collapsed and the north tower WTC1 was still standing, 1010WINS radio reported
that Fox News announced that there was an explosion near the Supreme Court Building in Washington. While it is true
that US Marshalls evacuated Chief Justice Rehnquist and 26 of the most senior federal chief judges from a side entrance onto
the street, no such explosion occurred. Why would Fox News report an explosion if one had not occurred? Why would
1010WINS radio in New York City repeat this lie? Richard Siegel's video of the demolition of the WTC Twin Towers, besides
being best evidence that complements and validates seismic readings of massive explosions, has 1010WINS radio playing in the
background throughout the recording, and several anomalies stand out in the news broadcasting which should be the subject
of an investigation. You can obtain Siegel's videos at http://www.911raw.com/.  Judicial Fellow and University of Calgary Professor of Law Peter Bowal gives a very interesting eyewitness account
of what actually transpired that morning at the Judicial Conference inside the Supreme Court Building. Click http://www.show-the-house.com/id61.html. The text box below is clickable and will take you directly to the US Courts website where you can read
about the Judicial Conference Proceedings that were scheduled for - but postponed - the very day the towers fell.
On page 68 you will see that the Committee to Review Circuit Council Conduct and Disability Orders dealt only with action
by the Judicial Council of the District of Columbia in August 2001 relative to a complaint filed in April 2001.
But again, one must remember that the Judicial Council was free to withhold notification in the interests of justice, and
here was a complaint that touched on the sovereign executive power vis à vis
the assault on the USS Liberty and the subsequent taking of the "Little Maginot Line" atop Syria's Golan Heights
in less than 24 hours! This matter is "eyes only" and I certainly had no notification of referral to the Judicial
Conference. Nor have I had any notification of peace in the Middle East! Rather, 9/11 spawned nothing but war
for eight years and still counting.
 Nearly four months after 9/11 (six full months after filing my petition) the decision of the Judicial
Council upholding the Chief Judge's dismissal of my original complaint as "frivolous" finally came on 7 January
2002. (See next two pages.)
Entertaining such
frivolity for so very long must have generated such laughter that the vibrations culminating on 11 September 2001 -- perhaps
at the Judicial Conference that convened that very day -- brought the towers down! Unless, of course, you prefer to believe eyewitness, photographic, audio, seismic and material
evidence of explosions as the real, purely scientific cause as demonstrated by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth at
http://www.ae911truth.org. Such explosives could only have been planted under the nose of the new landlord of seven weeks, Larry Silverstein,
and not by a man in a tent or cave in Afghanistan! Proof of military grade nano-thermitic explosives residue in dust
samples provided by local residents near Ground Zero in New York came from the Department of Chemistry of the University of
Copenhagen on 6 April 2009. Relevant links to this smoking gun evidence are provided in Open Letter #11 to the Attorney
General of the USA Eric Holder at http://www.show-the-house.com/id79.html. As these court documents show, precisely when
the Zionists were facing the very real threat of exposure of their shameful deceitfulness with respect to the USS Liberty
incident, they quite suddenly turned the tables and realized a coup that soon put American muscle on Mesopotamian patrol,
which had long been their goal. The Zionists had the motive, means and opportunity to pull off 9/11 and blame the attacks
on the Arabs. Instead of being put under proper scrutiny, they have led the investigations and judicial proceedings!
In this regard, I refer the reader to my Open Letters on 9/11 to the Attorney General of the USA Michael B. Mukasey at http://www.show-the-house.com/id54.html. At this point, I figured that a reasonable, last resort option would be to secure my case file
for donation to an institution of higher learning, where scholars could make their own independent judgments in a much larger,
historical context. Click here for easier to read copy of the next page. I sent a copy of my request for permission to donate my case file to Judge Cristol at his home
address, which he had given me back in 1991 when we met in Washington, DC, at a reunion of the USS Liberty Veterans Association.
The magic of those moments when we sat together at a banquet and schmoozed in the hotel lobby and conference rooms now lost,
the letter was returned with no reason given. There are only scrawled initials which I cannot read. It soon became apparent that at least one party was open to my idea. I admired the court's
cautious approach in this matter. (See next five pages.)
Click
here for easier to read copies of the following four page reply to the court's request for an inventory of documents to be donated.
Around this time I had a fortune cookie that read, "You have great attention to detail."
(See next four pages.)
So too did the court have great
attention to detail! (See next five pages and click here for easier to read copy of follow-up letter to edit court's summary of inventory of documents to be donated.)
     Finally, the Court punted. I gather that there was no agreement between Chief Judge Anderson
and Judge Cristol over my wanting to bestow my case file on an institution of higher learning. It appears to me that
the Court was determined not to deny my wish for more light on the subject. In further retrospect, I wonder what battles
were fought under the pretext of national security in the spring and summer of 2002, and did they have anything to do with
the inexplicable summary termination of Judicial Fellow Peter Bowal's fellowship at the US Supreme Court and his Professorship
at the University of Calgary? Was he collateral damage in the fight for truth and justice with respect to the USS Liberty
and the Zionists' illegal occupation of the Golan Heights? Click http://www.show-the-house.com/id62.html.  Six months later, in October 2002, I obtained my very first laptop computer and was on the Internet
regularly. (It so happened that my boss, Marion Britton, who supposedly perished on United Flight 93, had encouraged
me in my query about taking out a loan, which I subsequently did, to purchase the laptop.) I quickly found out that
in the 1930s Herbert Hoover actively advocated ethnic cleansing of Palestine to make room for the Zionists and therefore decided
that I did not want to donate my case file to an institution named after him. I also communicated my concern that the
USS Liberty Veterans Association would have an archive in an institution -- the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and
Peace at Stanford University -- so linked with illegal Zionist objectives. I suggested that the Kennedy School of Government
would be more apt to generate scholarly activity in support of their noble quest for the establishment of historical truth
and the proper administration of justice. (See http://www.gtr5.com.) 
|
